Are they both fighting against me?

Jon'C, I am a student of the Way. I always mean everything in both the mythical and philosophical sense, usually at the very same time, and in the most obtuse and illogical way possible. Taoism is like that.

I draw no distinction between faith and doubt. You cannot have faith without doubt, because the very definition of faith is believing despite your doubt. I also draw no distinction between science and religion, because I consider science to be a religion (in a certain sense) with the scientific principle as it's central tenant. Furthermore, people only fall into one of two categories. Those that understand the Way, and those that do not. The former category is forever empty.

You're one of them JM

Can you knock over boxes from across the room with your qi, too?

I can

...Mythical?

Yes, yes. "Not-x can't exist without x". That doesn't mean 'not-x' and 'x' are the same thing. That's like saying "I have no apples, which means I have apples!"

It's insane, it makes no sense, it's not profound and it's not even worth discussing. I don't exactly have a perfect understanding of Taoism, either, but I'm pretty sure the fact that you are forcing yourself to ignore the distinction between something that is a thing and something that is not a thing belies a fundamental misunderstanding of Taoism as well. Forces in opposition instead of... you know... your little written equivalent of a M.C. Escher painting.

No, it's because you don't understand it.

You cannot be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time because their beliefs are contradictory. You also can't be Buddhist. You can't be Jewish. You can't be Wiccan. You can't be a Roman or a Greek or a protogermanic or a protojudaic pagan. The beliefs, the codes of ethics and the histories are not compatible.

Science as a discipline discounts any theories that cannot be tested and proven. Creation Science isn't a science because it is not possible to conduct an experiment to prove or disprove the theory. There is absolutely no reason you can't be a Christian scientist. Or a Muslim scientist. Or a Buddhist scientist. Things that cannot be proven or disproven empircally are outside the scope of science: things such as religious belief. Spirituality is something that a credible scientist would never even be capable of questioning.

Albert Einstein is an excellent example, since he was a brilliant scientist who understood more about the universe than any of the people who post here and he was also deeply spiritual (instead of, you know, flipping through the Big Book of Deities and choosing the dead religion with the coolest logo. Ahem.) He never had a problem going to church, even though he was an astrophysicist. In fact he hated the idea of quantum theory being because it seemed too deliberate!

Do you mean the latter category, or are you suggesting that Taoism is bereft of spiritual value?

Or is it another one of those things where 'former' and 'latter' are the same word to you? But given the rest of your post the two categories thing (Taoist and not-Taoist) is impossible, because all things are Taoist.

I don't understand what you are saying.

All things are the way, and the way is no thing. Even the greatest Taoist sage does not understand the way. (The space between no and thing is not a typo.)

There is nothing at all preventing me from being both Taoist and Christian. Taoism blends nicely with everything. It's the other religions that don't get along. One of the things you clearly missed in your admitted limited study of Taoism is that it doesn't, actually, lay down any 'hard and fast rules' like other religions do. All that really matters is that you do good.

I thought the core of Taoism was to be true to one's nature, not to be good; if one's Tao guides them to be good, then that's incidental.

Now I am confused. You can't not be true to your nature. Why would something you have no control over be the core of a religion? It can't. And, furthermore, everyone's nature is to do good as well. Some people just hold good for themselves higher than good for others.

I think 'I'm Taoist' is what Isuwen tells drunk college girls to impress them. :p


You're still wrong, JM. Science is not a religion.

I'm touched. My ego says of course, my sensibilities wonder why.

Jon'C, think what you want.

You said, "All that really matters is that you do good." I was pointing out that Taoism speaks to the contrary - be true to your nature, and, if your nature leads you to do good things, it's incidental.

I've never heard any such thing. I'd like to know your source.

And, since the nature of man is to good... what's the difference?

Specifically, the Taoist belief of wu wei.

pseudoscience + faux spirituality = pseudointellectualism

That speaks nothing of the nature of the man, only of harmonizing with the Way. One of the very few thoughts actually expressed clearly by the Tao Te Ching and the writings of Chuang Tzu is that man is fundamentally good.

...and to harmonize with the Tao, one must make decisions and actions that are in line with his/her nature...

Funny, the Catholics believe than man is fundamentally bad (which is why they're in a sin/confess cycle and are born with original sin). So you can't be on of them and a Taoist.

Yeah, me too. Sorry, but Leaky Bucket sucked.


He's right. Science is not a religion. This is an undisputed fact, a conclusion made through logic an deduction. You refuse to agree, because you either don't know what science is, or are twisting the definition of faith to rationalize your beliefs.

For nothing more than writing the best JED tutorials on massassi's servers.

I am not Catholic.



For the rest of your post; I was disinclined to pay attention to it after your ad hominem attack. It also receives a

I'm not saying you are, I'm just calling you on the fact that you said you can be a Christian and a Taoist: you obviously can't be the original half of Christian AND a Taoist because the two doctrines are in direct opposition.

Haha It's not really an ad hominem, since I'm not using it to support my argument.

Oh, and Planetary Hydrothingimagic or whatever also sucked. I think you may have had other good ones but they escape me.

The only word I disagree with is 'also'.


Original half? Actually, Taoism is very flexible. It can mix with anything.

...by abandoning the concept that men are inherently good?

Catholicism is the root of organized Christianity. I'm not sure if it makes up half of Christianity, but it's definitely a huge presence even in Protestant churches.

Not even Catholicism says people are inherently evil. What it does say is that your sins soil you. You are dirty. Not evil; tainted. If your nature was evil, no amount of confession and forgiveness would make you good. Nothing about the sin and confession cycle makes a person inherently bad. If anything, it proves they are inherently good.

Original sin

Burnsauce.

For what ever it's worth, I as a Christian will cooberate* Original Sin.

*However the heck you spell that word

corroborate.

get Firefox, it has spell checker.

This discussion is terribly repetative.

Isuwen says something.

Jon`C replies, nullifying Isuwen's statement.

Isuwen says the same thing again.

Etc...

Original Sin != Inherently Evil.

Antony is right : I say something. You argue against something I didn't say. I say it again, hoping you'll understand it this time.

Original Sin means that we are born with the capacity to sin. If we were born holy we would be unable to sin, it would be completely contrary to our nature. Original Sin doesn't means that we are born as bad people, it just means that we don't start out at our destination.

Of course, it's all hogwash anyway :p

Today I believe I came upon the simplest way I can state my position on Original Sin and how it relates to my belief that all people are fundamentally good.

It is irrelevant, first because the belief in original sin does not require the belief that people are not fundamentally good, and second because I don't believe in original sin in the first place.

To be honest I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, but saying it's irrelevant because you don't believe in it is just plain daft. I'm going to call you on it - and then everyone else is.

Imagine a Friend14 fyzzix thread - "I'll ignore your proof (by real maths) by simply stating that I don't believe in it". Just don't work my friend.

I don't believe it (I'm not a catholic) but it doesn't mean that millions of people don't either Find a better argument.

The argument was that I could not be Christian and Taoist at the same time, and that I could not believe that all people are fundamentally good and still be Christian because of the idea of original sin.

Therefore, what I believe is all that is important.



It is quite irrelevant what other people think about the subject, because it is my and only my beliefs that are in question. I am telling you simply : I choose Ezekiel 18 over Psalm 51.

No, that's not how it works.

You post "Science is a religion".
Then I post how retarded that is.
Then you post "No, no, you just don't understand! :downs: Science is a religion."
Then I post how retarded that is.
Then you post "I pretend to be a follower of a rare and obscure religion on the internet. That means I can make up anything I want, so according to my religion everything is a religion! YAAAY! :v:"
Then everybody posts how retarded that is.

Repeat forever.

Then I ask you: if you don't believe in Original Sin, why do people sin? Wouldn't we be able to follow God's law accordingly - naturally being in a state of holiness? What need would there have been for Christ to have died on the cross if people didn't need to go through Him to achieve salvation?

Religion IS based on faith, and scientists DO have to have faith that the laws of ______ will work every time they try to figure something out.

Soooo....

Science isn't a system based on faith...

But that faith is founded in multiple and repeatable demonstrations that those scientific and, if those laws are ever called into question, one can demonstrate that the law still holds true.

However, if you have doubt of God's existence, there is no process that you can follow that empirically proves the existence of God.

Thus, faith in the continuity of the laws of physics is not the same thing as faith in the existence of God.